Element of NIMBY in council inconsistencies

ANOTHER day and another dubious decision made by council regarding development.

On Tuesday, council voted to approve the 39-storey and very bulky Masthead building in Main Beach (pictured).

In spite of numerous local objections and dimensions that exceed City Plan guidelines, it got over the line.

Why? The main reason quoted by Paul Weston in his article was that some councillors “feared opposing the project could lead to an expensive and unwinnable legal battle in the planning court.

In spite of this, only a few weeks ago, council showed no such caution when it opposed something that actually did comply with guidelines.

This was a modest four-level development in a medium density area in Runaway Bay.

Indeed, a council officer stated it “complied with all relevant City Plan assessment benchmarks” and recommended approval of the application.

In spite of that, Cameron Caldwell, the councillor for that area and with special responsibilities for development throughout the Coast, decided to oppose the plans and others joined him.

The upshot? Council is now being taken to court by the developer and who can be surprised?

But why did they say “no” to the compliant and relatively small building but “yes” to the over-sized non-compliant one?

Residents objected in both cases but given the size of the Main Beach Association, the number of objections is likely to be far higher than the Runaway Bay group.

Maybe it’s not fear of legal action but, for Cr Caldwell at least, it’s a “not in my backyard” mindset?

Whatever it is, it reinforces once again that there’s a strong tendency to approve “tall and big” but in certain areas more than others.

Too bad for those who feel they now live in the wrong place.